- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 16:21:16 +0900
- To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at: https://www.w3.org/2020/11/26-wot-arch-minutes.html also as text below. Thanks, Kazuyuki --- [1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ WoT Architecture 26 Nov 2020 [2]Agenda [2] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#Agenda Attendees Present Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_Lagally, Michael_McCool, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Sebastian_Kaebisch Regrets Chair Lagally Scribe kaz Contents * [3]Topics 1. [4]Prev minutes 2. [5]FPWD 3. [6]Architecture TF page 4. [7]Transferring the requirements section to the Use Cases TF 5. [8]Issue 565 and PR 567 6. [9]PR 528 7. [10]PR 562 8. [11]Use Cases PRs 9. [12]Profile 10. [13]AOB * [14]Summary of Action Items * [15]Summary of Resolutions __________________________________________________________ <scribe> scribenick: kaz Prev minutes [16]Nov-19 [16] https://www.w3.org/2020/11/19-wot-arch-minutes.html Lagally: let's approve the minutes all: ok (approved) FPWD [17]wot-architecture11 FPWD [17] https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/WD-wot-architecture11-20201124/ Lagally: FPWD of WoT Architecture Ver 1.1 has been published McCool: we should think about publication schedule update Lagally: how did we mention our plan on the Charter? [18]Charter [18] https://www.w3.org/2020/01/wot-wg-charter.html#profiles McCool: generally, changes which wouldn't break the compatibility should be the target for this Charter period Kaz: we used "Update" vs "Next" instead of "1.1" vs "2.0" within the Charter McCool: right ... the current TD spec allows the usage of additional vocabulary ... would like to see the updated schedule tool [19]milestone calculator [19] https://w3c.github.io/spec-releases/milestones/ McCool: we should start with the CR transition given the FPWD is published Lagally: (tries it) ... maybe around July 1 for CR? ... and REC in the end of Sep McCool: we should think about the possible feedback from the wide reviews like privacy ... what about CR early July? Lagally: (tries that) McCool: could you put the resulted dates on the main wiki? Lagally: (updates the publication schedule on the WoT Main wiki) [20]Publication schedule [20] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Deliverable_and_F2F_Meeting_Plan McCool: we could remove 2.0 portions Lagally: July 1 for CR ... September 1 for PR ... November 1 for REC McCool: the point here is that we concentrate on the "Updates" Lagally: ok ... we can revisit the update plan McCool: regarding the Use Cases Note, we should be able to publish a stable version in Feb 2021 as planned Lagally: might be even earlier [21]updated publication schedule [21] https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/Main_WoT_WebConf#Deliverable_and_F2F_Meeting_Plan Architecture TF page McCool: we should create a Pullrequest for the wot-marketing repo ... you can go ahead and generate one for wot-architecture ... and myself can work on wot-security, etc. ... we can talk about the template of the pages during the marketing calls ... if you want, I can grab the architecture wiki content and create a Pullrequest for you Lagally: great Transferring the requirements section to the Use Cases TF Lagally: created a Pullrequest for that purpose [22]5. Requirements within the WoT Use Cases Note [22] https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/#sec-requirements McCool: we should add privacy/i18n in addition to security/accessibility ... probably we should add a separate section for horizontal requirements Kaz: not within the use cases section but within (or additional) requirements section. right? McCool: yes, maybe we could add an intermediate section ... can look into that Lagally: ok ... note that we should look into the reference section as well Kaz: do you mean picking up the latest/updated links? Lagally: no, simply fix the format McCool: note that ReSpec should handle the format ... so we should update the ReSpec DB too Lagally: what about adding hyperlinks first ... and then think about how to deal with them using ReSpec ... (looks into the HTML source of the reference section) [23]Appendix B: References [23] https://w3c.github.io/wot-usecases/#a-references McCool: there should be DB entries at the top of the HTML code Lagally: (creates a GitHub issue for fixing the reference section) [24]ReSpec Documentation [24] https://respec.org/docs/ Lagally: ReSpec handles the references Mizushima: are there any example descriptions? Lagally: you can look into wot-thing-description/index.html, wot-architecture/index.html and wot-profile/index.html ... (shows the example of wot-profile/index.html) [25]wot-profile/index.html [25] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/blob/master/index.html Lagally: the reference entries are automatically generated based on the reference links within the specification text McCool: we need to look into the ReSpec DB entries as well for possible additions [26]Specref site [26] https://www.specref.org/ Lagally: Mizushima-san, could you see that? Mizushima: ok, will do Issue 565 and PR 567 [27]Issue 565 [27] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/565 [28]PR 567 [28] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/567 Lagally: removing the requirements section from the WoT Architecture document [29]diff [29] https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/wot-architecture/567/6ddd5ef...680c108.html Lagally: would suggest we merge this McCool: concur Kaz: +1 (merged) PR 528 [30]PR 528 [30] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/528 [31]changes [31] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/528/files Lagally: connected building requirements ... (goes through the changes) McCool: maybe we can add an Editor's note saying "still need review" Kaz: this change should be also transferred to the wot-usecases repo. right? Lagally: right ... would suggest we once merge this within the wot-architecture repo ... and then transfer the content to wot-usecases Kaz: ok Lagally: (adds a note to PR 528) [32]Lagally's comment [32] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/528#issuecomment-734385902 (and then merged) PR 562 [33]PR 562 [33] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/562 Lagally: add candidates for UI link types McCool: would have several iteration about this ... so would suggest we merge this PR itself Lagally: ok Kaz: +1 (merged) Lagally: now no open PRs for wot-architecture Use Cases PRs McCool: what about wot-usecases? [34]wot-usecases PRs [34] https://github.com/w3c/wot-usecases/pulls Lagally: 3 open PRs ... but let's talk about them during the Use Cases call McCool: ok ... can look into PR 51 on ITU-T summary Lagally: let's discuss it during the next Use Cases call McCool: ok Profile [35]wot-profile issues [35] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues [36]Issue 55 [36] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/55 Lagally: let's assume we don't have any signing at the moment McCool: ok ... technical discussion on how to deal with canonicalization would make sense ... we could put it into TD ... Profile also needs canonicalization, though Lagally: there is a PR on canonicalization [37]PR 51 [37] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/51 McCool: it's a starting point but not complete yet ... thinking about array and the order of the values Kaz: maybe looking into the mapping between TD and SDF might be useful here as well McCool: note SDF doesn't handle URLs Lagally: ideally the canonicalized representation should be identical for the same class of TDs McCool: right (Sebastian leaves) McCool: maybe we need some additional wrapper information to TD ... about which part to be added by directory Lagally: kind of like phonebook to get the address Kaz: which includes semantic search as well possibly Lagally: may include encrypted TDs <inserted> mm: possibly could return part of the TDs Kaz: so it would relate to the TD fragments discussion McCool: right Lagally: (going back to Issue 55) [38]Issue 55 [38] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/55 Lagally: (shows McCool's comment gave 7 days ago) [39]McCool's comments [39] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues/55#issuecomment-730501826 Other TD canonicalization topics discussed: Default values. Do we omit properties that are assigned their default values? These could have been filled in when a TD is imported into a directory, for example. Prefixes. This is a JSON-LD issue. If a URL is defined for a prefix, and a database expands them internally, we need to convert BACK to prefixes when serializing... IF the original document used them. We may have to add a rule that TDs must ALWAYS use prefixes and not URIs for vocab terms? I suspect this is the main thing we should coordinate with the JSON-LD group, but we should ask them about other known issues. Array ordering. There some places in TDs where arrays are used but the order does not matter, eg form, op, etc. We need to add an assertion that TD processing must not change the order of any arrays, even if there is no semantic change. Note that JCS says that order of arrays is not changed. Array-of-one-element: see above. We should check for any other equivalent-ways-to-express the same thing and the canonical form should insist on one. ]] McCool: note that now we have the combo scheme Lagally: if you have some self-contain content... ... what would be expected? ... possibly a couple of different protocols there McCool: first is discovery ... currently we're thinking about HTTP ... another possibility is CoAP over TCP/IP ... possibly multiple protocols in one form ... there is a use case for that Lagally: right ... on the other hand, we want to keep our profile simple ... we need some balance here McCool: depends on machine-to-machine interaction or human interaction ... if we identify specifying the order would be useful, the most important one should be listed first ... would be not essential but should be safer ... the use case in my mind is mainly regarding the directory Lagally: note that the canonicalization should keep human readability ... RFC8785 already defines some canonicalization [40]RFC8785 [40] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8785 McCool: right ... we should be compatible with that ... as the starting point Lagally: need any updates to PR 51? [41]PR 51 [41] https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/51 McCool: can work on that ... do you want me to work on that? Lagally: would merge PR 51 itself ... and then ask you to give updates (merged as the starting point) AOB [42]wot-architecture issue 569 [42] https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/issues/569 Kaz: we talked about some possible boilerplate text for W3C specs in general at the beginning of today's call ... please let me record that here ... will check with the W3Mers <scribe> ACTION: kaz to talk with PLH, Ralph and Wendy about the possible boilerplate text on diversity, etc. McCool: would follow the W3C policy Lagally: anything else for today? (none) [adjourned] Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: kaz to talk with PLH, Ralph and Wendy about the possible boilerplate text on diversity, etc. Summary of Resolutions [End of minutes] __________________________________________________________ Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's [43]scribe.perl version ([44]CVS log) $Date: 2020/12/17 14:37:16 $ [43] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm [44] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 11 January 2021 07:21:21 UTC